What, exactly, are the written NCAA rules that allow exceptions to the usual one-year sit-out requirement for transfer students?

This is difficult to ferret out because there are various exceptions and waivers sprinkled around the massive NCAA D1 Manual. I'll do my best to paraphrase the major exceptions/waivers with a few quotes of key phrases. Then, you can guess which one of these rules may have applied to Jessica Shepard or your favorite never-had-to-sit-out transfer student.

Some lingo: The NCAA regulations call the sit-out year the "residency requirement", the transfer-from school the "original institution", and the transfer-to school the "certifying institution".

-- the student returns to her original institution after participating in a "cooperative educational exchange program"

-- the student enrolls in the certifying institution for a specified period of time as a "bona fide exchange student participating in a formal educational exchange program"

-- the original institution has "discontinued the academic program in the student's major"

-- the student is an international student who is required to transfer by her government or sponsoring organization

-- the student is returning from 12 months of military service

-- the original institution drops the student's sport or reclassifies it to DII or DIII

-- the student never participated in the sport at the original institution at all or for more than 14 consecutive days

-- the student was never recruited by the certifying institution, has never received athletic financial aid, and didn't participate at any previous institution for more than 14 consecutive days

Regulation 14.7.1 allows waivers of "academic and general eligibility requirements" in the following circumstances (but it's ambiguous as to whether this includes the residency requirement for transferees):

-- "times of national emergency"

-- for institutions that have "suffered extraordinary personnel losses" in a sport "due to accident or illness of a disastrous nature"

Regulation 14.7.2 is specifically entitled "Residence Requirement Waivers". It empowers the "Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief" to waive the one-year residence requirement in the following circumstances:

-- "For a student-athlete who transfers to a member institution for reasons of health." Such a waiver request must be instituted by the original (transfer-from) institution and be supported by recommendations by that institution's team physician or by the student's personal physician.

-- the student has lost eligibility because the original institution has committed recruiting violations and the student was innocent or only inadvertently involved in the violations

-- the original institution has been put on probation in the student's sport for post-season competition either because of conduct violations or for failing the Academic Performance Program standards

It seems obvious to me that the most pliable, manipulable and abusable waiver/exception is the one "for health". The regulation doesn't even specify whose health it has to be. Surely it can be the student-athlete's health, but it is ambiguous enough to also cover a family member's health if, say, the family member is nearer the certifying (transfer-to) school than the original school. It's also interesting that the original school is the one that has to request the waiver. Using Shepard as a hypothetical example, that probably means that Notre Dame would have to request, beg or somehow pressure Nebraska to request the waiver. Then Shepard's personal doctor could provide the reason.

I suppose the "discontinued major" exception could also be somewhat manipulated. "Hey, NCAA, I wanted to major in Sanskrit, but Nebraska doesn't offer it as a major but Notre Dame does."

There could be other exceptions to the residency requirement lurking in ambiguous language in the Regs, but these are all I currently see. I welcome other masochists to scrutinize the reams of fine print.

Obviously, the transfers are certified by the "health" clause, and presumably legal pressure can be applied to the original school to force them to "initiate the process." In other words, "we'll sue you for malpractice/harassment/whatever" unless you sign the paperwork -- and just the filing of any such claim would look very bad for the original school.

Which means, just as with our California high school transfer rules, if you've got enough money to lawyer up, the governing body will fold like a plastic chair. Now if you don't have money, you sit out ...

So, as is typical of the NCAA, the rich can manipulate the system. Now if there were no sit-out period, it wouldn't matter how much money you had, and everyone would have the same access to scholarships and a basketball court.

Re: the health clause. Most D-I schools, and certainly all of the P5 schools, are located in communities with large hospitals and sports medicine programs. There's not much need to transfer for treatment of a broken wrist or ACL injury, or even evaluation of a cardiac arrhythmia. While there are exceptions, like a student at a school in the boondocks with a rare disease, that's not what most of the recent transfers involve. Unless the student has a fairly obscure ailment, the "health" transfer would be for family support or for the student to provide support to another ill family member.

I don't think lawyers even need to be involved, just the student sobbing that she needs her mommy. As for threats of malpractice suits, transfers usually involve lesser and not more conservative standards of care; for example, multiply-concussed Jamie Carey transferring from Stanford to Texas or Amber Gray (aneurysm with brain hemorrhage) transferring from Tenn to Xavier, and the new physicians deciding that a miracle happened and now they're well enough to play. It's pretty hard to threaten to sue a doctor for being conservative, although constant haranguing by the family to allow return to play might exasperate the physician into signing a transfer recommendation form.

Re: the health clause. Most D-I schools, and certainly all of the P5 schools, are located in communities with large hospitals and sports medicine programs. There's not much need to transfer for treatment of a broken wrist or ACL injury, or even evaluation of a cardiac arrhythmia. While there are exceptions, like a student at a school in the boondocks with a rare disease, that's not what most of the recent transfers involve. Unless the student has a fairly obscure ailment, the "health" transfer would be for family support or for the student to provide support to another ill family member.

I don't think lawyers even need to be involved, just the student sobbing that she needs her mommy. As for threats of malpractice suits, transfers usually involve lesser and not more conservative standards of care; for example, multiply-concussed Jamie Carey transferring from Stanford to Texas or Amber Gray (aneurysm with brain hemorrhage) transferring from Tenn to Xavier, and the new physicians deciding that a miracle happened and now they're well enough to play. It's pretty hard to threaten to sue a doctor for being conservative, although constant haranguing by the family to allow return to play might exasperate the physician into signing a transfer recommendation form.

I've seen this used at the high school level, and with lawyers, it's worked: The athlete needs to participate in her sport in order to maintain her mental health. Denying her access would cause her to suffer trauma and distress, and this immediate eligibility is a necessity for good mental health.

And since it will cost $30,000 or more to fight such a request in court -- and you might lose -- the path of least resistance is to simply make the athlete immediately eligible.

So again, if you have enough money, and you know how to work the system, you don't have to sit out. Unfair? Of course, but the NCAA doesn't care about details like fair or unfair ...

I agree that "health" would have to include mental health, and that that would be the easiest kind of health problem to allege. A doctor simply says that the student is suffering from depression or anxiety due to circumstances at the original school and recommends a transfer, to virtually anywhere else, as a needed adjunct to therapy. The NCAA Subcommittee would then seem to be limited to adjudicating whether the circumstances at the original school are "bad enough" or whether the application seems weak or phony.

I suppose a physical health problem could be a localized allergy. There's lots of corn dust in the air in Nebraska causing serious histamine symptoms in the student, and there are no such allergens in the air in South Bend.

And, to top everything off, because these are medical issues, both schools couldn't comment on the real reason for the transfer because of HIPAA or other medical privacy laws.

There's no good reason for student-athletes to be forced to sit out when transferring.

...especially when coaches, under contract to one school, can end up leaving for another school without having to sit out for one year (though there may be paying of penalties for the contract with the former institution).

Ok , so why don't you all lay out for us how your grand conspiracy theories explain Desiree Elmore.

Is it that Seton Hall has such incredible clout with the NCAA?

Are Elmore's parents loaded and were prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue the NCAA?

Could it have to do with the apparently undisclosed injury that caused her to sit out last year?

Or could it simply be that all the favoritism and conspiracies exist only in your fertile imaginations and that in the real world, the NCAA examines all of the FACTS that are presented to it (facts to which you have no access) and makes a judgement, a judgement that may appear arbitrary and inconsistent to those outside who don't know the facts (and, given the NCAA's track record might actually be arbitrary and inconsistent but devoid of politics and favoritism) ?

And could it be that the explanation for most of the "why didn't she get a waiver " examples is that she didn't apply?

There's no good reason for student-athletes to be forced to sit out when transferring.

Agreed but allowing 1 team to get 1 and not others is the problem.

One can argue that there shouldn't be a residency requirement at all, but since there is, and since there are a multiplicity of exceptions and waivers, it's most likely that some transferees qualify for these exceptions or waivers and others don't. Or, perhaps even more likely, most transferees don't even know about the exceptions and waivers, so they don't seek them. These are the most likely reasons for the differing results.

How many students would know about the technicalities of the waivers and exceptions that I (only) paraphrased in the OP? How many parents would know? How many fans, such as here on RebKell (before my OP)? How many average lawyers? I think the most likely answer in all of these cases is "none".

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the residency requirement exceptions and waivers, but it sure helps. I have three law degrees, have practiced and taught law for 45 years, am very familiar with WBB, am generally familiar with the NCAA D1 manual on many issues, yet it took me a good hour to research and write that OP.

Also, for the easiest waiver route -- transfer for mental health reasons -- a lawyer will best know how to pitch a strong specific argument rather than a weaker general argument. For example, an argument that the athlete has depression or anxiety because she picked the wrong school locale, or is unhappy with her playing time, is not likely to be convincing. It would be much more effective to paint an almost irresistible, au courant, PC scenario. For example, that the athlete is suffering suicidal thoughts because she is being bullied and mocked at her current school for being a lesbian and having transgender ideations, and that a change of environment is immediately critical to her mental and physical well being. No NCAA committee bureaucrat would risk rejecting that kind of argument in today's uber-PC academia culture. Also, an experienced lawyer is likely to know sympathetic psychiatrists who would make such a case in writing.

My fee were I still working would be modest: a Manhattan style pizza, a case of Jamaican ginger ale, and a proportionate baksheesh.

It's also very possible, indeed likely, that many coaches don't want the transfer to seek a waiver. In a common situation, the player may have two years of eligibility remaining. It's not like a freshman where they can burn a year learning the system and teammates and still have three useful years left. If the coach wants two full years of quality play (and doesn't have an immediate need) they might prefer the player to redshirt and work with the team for a year.

Indeed that was implied albeit not stated by Geno when he said he didn't seek waivers for Stevens and Camara.

It's also very possible, indeed likely, that many coaches don't want the transfer to seek a waiver. In a common situation, the player may have two years of eligibility remaining. It's not like a freshman where they can burn a year learning the system and teammates and still have three useful years left. If the coach wants two full years of quality play (and doesn't have an immediate need) they might prefer the player to redshirt and work with the team for a year.

Indeed that was implied albeit not stated by Geno when he said he didn't seek waivers for Stevens and Camara.

Redshirts are still on scholarship. Transfers that are forced to sit out are not. That can be a hardship for some students.

_________________Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial

It's also very possible, indeed likely, that many coaches don't want the transfer to seek a waiver. In a common situation, the player may have two years of eligibility remaining. It's not like a freshman where they can burn a year learning the system and teammates and still have three useful years left. If the coach wants two full years of quality play (and doesn't have an immediate need) they might prefer the player to redshirt and work with the team for a year.

Indeed that was implied albeit not stated by Geno when he said he didn't seek waivers for Stevens and Camara.

Redshirts are still on scholarship. Transfers that are forced to sit out are not. That can be a hardship for some students.

That's usually not true. It relates to the issue of the potential transfer student getting a "release" (= permission) to talk to a potential transferee school. If the player does not get a release but ends up transferring to that school, the student can't get an athletic scholarship for the sit-out year. If the player does get a release, however, she can be on athletic scholarship for the sit-out year.

This was the big issue for Letitia Romero. The vast majority of transfer players get releases, as did Romero eventually.

It's also very possible, indeed likely, that many coaches don't want the transfer to seek a waiver. In a common situation, the player may have two years of eligibility remaining. It's not like a freshman where they can burn a year learning the system and teammates and still have three useful years left. If the coach wants two full years of quality play (and doesn't have an immediate need) they might prefer the player to redshirt and work with the team for a year.

Indeed that was implied albeit not stated by Geno when he said he didn't seek waivers for Stevens and Camara.

Redshirts are still on scholarship. Transfers that are forced to sit out are not. That can be a hardship for some students.

That's usually not true. It relates to the issue of the potential transfer student getting a "release" (= permission) to talk to a potential transferee school. If the player does not get a release but ends up transferring to that school, the student can't get an athletic scholarship for the sit-out year. If the player does get a release, however, she can be on athletic scholarship for the sit-out year.

This was the big issue for Letitia Romero. The vast majority of transfer players get releases, as did Romero eventually.

Correct. Pilight is mixing up two different rules/issues. A student who transfers and isn't violating her LOI or contact rules or some conference's transfer rules, usually has to sit out from games for a year (absent a waiver) but IS on scholarship for the year. Which is the usual situation - on scholarship, can practice, can play in exhibitions and foreign trip games, can't play in games that count.

" For example, that the athlete is suffering suicidal thoughts because she is being bullied and mocked at her current school for being a lesbian and having transgender ideations, and that a change of environment is immediately critical to her mental .."

or vice versa.....a straight gal could complain of the pressures....

but this is such a deep hole that no college can question it.......if a player complains about pressure from another teammate, she doesn't have to name the other player and she gets a get out of jail free card.....If she accuses a coach, she'd have to name the coach and that would be sticky.....

no matter what, it would take some real conniving to pull this off, and isn't it coincidental that its rich schools that get the goodies....

I'd rather see no restrictions on transfers if well connected players can get away with it while others can't.....

with Hippa rules, one can never question anything about a health issue....physical or mental.....

no matter what, it would take some real conniving to pull this off, and isn't it coincidental that its rich schools that get the goodies....

My example was intentionally extreme to make the point, but you're right that the rich and connected will always be better off. That's true in any legal, economic, social, business or cultural system in the history of the world that I'm aware of.

Now that transfers are increasingly common, it wouldn't surprise me that a school like Notre Dame is plugged into network of knowledgeable sports lawyers and doctors -- perhaps even on their in-house staffs -- who are sophisticated in processing residence requirement waivers. And since it's in every school's mutual interest to get waivers when they want them, it wouldn't surprise me that the originating (transfer-from) schools are willing to initiate waiver requests once their player's transfer is a done deal.

When waivers become common enough or abused enough, more people will come to the conclusion that residence requirements don't make sense anymore.

Ok , so why don't you all lay out for us how your grand conspiracy theories explain Desiree Elmore.

Is it that Seton Hall has such incredible clout with the NCAA?

Are Elmore's parents loaded and were prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue the NCAA?

Could it have to do with the apparently undisclosed injury that caused her to sit out last year?

Or could it simply be that all the favoritism and conspiracies exist only in your fertile imaginations and that in the real world, the NCAA examines all of the FACTS that are presented to it (facts to which you have no access) and makes a judgement, a judgement that may appear arbitrary and inconsistent to those outside who don't know the facts (and, given the NCAA's track record might actually be arbitrary and inconsistent but devoid of politics and favoritism) ?

And could it be that the explanation for most of the "why didn't she get a waiver " examples is that she didn't apply?

Ok , so why don't you all lay out for us how your grand conspiracy theories explain Desiree Elmore.

Is it that Seton Hall has such incredible clout with the NCAA?

Are Elmore's parents loaded and were prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue the NCAA?

Could it have to do with the apparently undisclosed injury that caused her to sit out last year?

Or could it simply be that all the favoritism and conspiracies exist only in your fertile imaginations and that in the real world, the NCAA examines all of the FACTS that are presented to it (facts to which you have no access) and makes a judgement, a judgement that may appear arbitrary and inconsistent to those outside who don't know the facts (and, given the NCAA's track record might actually be arbitrary and inconsistent but devoid of politics and favoritism) ?

And could it be that the explanation for most of the "why didn't she get a waiver " examples is that she didn't apply?

It's simple, really: Allow adults to make decisions about where they want to attend school and play basketball (or study drama or chemical engineering) for four years out of six without restriction.

McGraw and Auriemma have voiced being against no-wait transfers, although I don’t recall them specifically saying why. I suppose it’ll make transfers too enticing and prevalent. I suspect those coaches who can’t keep their recruiting promises (outright lies in many cases) get bailed on more frequently. Same with coaches with hard practices. Players may tend to seek an easier route instead of enduring and getting better.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

YEP heard that too. Funny how a lot of opinions have changed due to the fact that they got what they wanted LMAO But when it is other schools it is not fair. Not only did they get a nice gift from the NCAA but one of their players got to keep a nice chunk of cash. ALL while the NCAA is targeting others for getting cash in federal court. SEE the discrepancy. Can't have it both ways.

If ND was so powerful in bending the NCAA to their will, why did the NCAA wait until the day of the first exhibition game to clear Shepard? Wouldn't they have done it before the preseason practices so that McGraw could structure those practices knowing that she'd be playing that season?

why did the NCAA wait until the day of the first exhibition game to clear Shepard?

When was the waiver request and all the necessary supporting documentation filed with the Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief? No one knows.

But the members of that Subcommittee who voted yes on Shepard's waiver are directly responsible for Notre Dame's national championship, and Muffet should give them rings.

That's why Shepard is picked on: She's the only transferee who had her sit-out year waived who's ever been a crucial starting player on a national championship team. All other transferees who may have gotten waivers are invisible because they didn't matter to any nationally important games, at least to most people's knowledge or memories. (If I'm forgetting someone, please remind us.)

So in your mind, Shepard should have been treated unequally and been denied a waiver regardless of the merits of her petition just because she was going to a school where she might matter, but it would have been fine to have given her a waiver if she had picked Seton Hall?

Why am I not surprised. That makes as much sense as most of the rest that's been written on this subject here.

How about Shepard is "picked on" simply some posters here simply don't like Notre Dame and because of sour grapes that Notre Dame won the national championship rather than the whiner's favorite team. That actually is more likely the reason.